Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'Both women were stunned.'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said. 'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.

bgilmore5:Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws? If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?

Michelle Bachmann and creationists being on those committees is just as bad as who try to write gun laws with no knowledge or consultation of people who know about guns.

vpb:Dimensio:Just as you are "objectively wrong" when you declare that a rifle that operates only in a semi-automatic fashion is an "assault rifle".

That's your answer? "Uh UHHHH! YOU!"

Really?

You can stamp your feet and pretend whatever you want, but the term "assault weapon" defined in law. It's something that can be proven in court.

Also it's common vernacular. It doesn't really matter if you approve of the term or not, you don't have any authority to dictate the English language to anyone. It's like an anti-abortion protester trying to claim that the term "pro choice" doesn't exist.

And an assault rifle doesn't stop being an assault rifle if you make it semi automatic any more than a dog stops being a dog if it loses a leg. Even if you were to de-mil it entirely so it didn't fire, it would sill be an assault rifle.

.

Attempting to justify incorrect use of a term does not alter the proper definition of the term.

The AR-15 pattern rifle that I own was never capable of fully automatic nor "burst fire" operation. From its initial manufacture, it has operated only as a semi-automatic rifle. It is, therefore, not an "assault rifle" by definition and describing it as such is not honest.

While I understand that you hate firearms and that you advocate unreasonable firearm restrictions (such as the vetoed effort to ban all magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles in California), dishonestly redefining terminology does not justify those restrictions.

And lastly, not everyone is a gun nut. Finding one in a rental car could lead any normal person to several unappealing conclusions about possible crimes committed, etc.

I would have come to similar conclusions if I found a Hi-Point in the glove box, or a sawed-off shotgun under the seat....

vpb:You can stamp your feet and pretend whatever you want, but the term "assault weapon" defined in law.

And it's defined differently based on what jurisdiction you're in.

Also it's common vernacular.

Thanks to the Orwellian efforts of gun control advocates, who seek to cast an ever increasing amount of firearms under the "assault weapon" banner.

And an assault rifle doesn't stop being an assault rifle if you make it semi automatic any more than a dog stops being a dog if it loses a leg. Even if you were to de-mil it entirely so it didn't fire, it would sill be an assault rifle.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the reasonable, commonsense gun control advocate.

Rhypskallion:Do you imagine kids should have the same comfort zones adult should have? Violence is abhorrent to the innocent. And that is a good thing.

The act of violence, sure. But guns and knives are inanimate objects. If you're having that kind of reaction just by seeing or being near one, then you should seek help since you must have had a traumatic experience with one. That's not healthy otherwise.

learning a bit about guns would be a good place to begin. That's just totally wrong.

Germany during World War II, had several Sturmgeweher. There was the StG44, the StG45, the "Volkssturmgewehr " (which means people's assault rifle) series which were mostly semi-automatic.

It IS cute how you NRA types pretend to be experts when you know so little about the subject.

/but at least you don't think the phrase "assault rifle" was invented by pro-gun control people like most gun nuts.

You. Are. Wrong. The STG-45 wasn't even fielded in the war. The STG series of weapons were "assault rifles," in that they were select-fire, that's one of their defining features, the other being the intermediate cartridge.

Well, someone who knows that an AR-15 is an assault rifle certainly knows more about the subject than someone who doesn't.

But an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. An assault rifle has a clear, historic definition.

You could call it an assault weapon, like the Brady Campaign. That's a more subjective, feelings-based phrase that isn't demonstrably wrong.

Bullshiat. Eugene Stoner designed the AR-15 specifically to be an assault rifle. It's an assault rifle.

Even assuming that it's semi-automatic, the idea that a semi-automatic rifle stops being an assault rifle is idiotic. It's simple ignorance of grammar.

Even if the NRA was some sort of "official definer" of the English language, it would still be correct to define something that met the definition of an assault rifle except for not being selective fire with an adjective phrase, such as "semi-automatic".

Besides, the term "assault rifle" was made up by Germans during WW-II and they made semi-automatic assault rifles, so you are demonstrably wrong.

An "assault weapon" is a widely used phrase with a clear and well known meaning. it's even defined in law, unlike the term "assault rifle" It refers to battle rifles, assault rifles and submachine-guns that have been modified enough in an attempt to make them legal.

I especially live the idea that "assault weapon" is a "made up" phrase.

All language is "made up". I assume gun nuts think that LaPierre brought a dictionary carved on a rock that he had from a burning plant down from a mountain?

coeyagi:Dimensio: coeyagi: tblax: My favorite part about these threads is all the gun nerds flipping a tit over terms

Exactly. OMG, they said "Assault Rifle", and it's NOT an assault rifle, therefore the gun owner was completely responsible and the article writer is the irresponsible one!

Deflection is all they have.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.

Why bring it up at all? Why not be the bigger man and get to the heart of the issue, that the b*tch was irresponsible. I know, I know, your agenda, furthermore and comma. You're a reasonable person in non gun threads, but pretty much insufferable in gun threads. FYI.

First off, there is no discussion to be had around "the owner was irresponsible". That is a given fact. If that is all we talked about the entire thread would be: "The owner was irresponsible" followed by 500 "I know, right?".

Second, it isn't an agenda. It is actually an anti-agenda, an unorganized attempt to slow someone else from achieving their actual agenda. Other than a few excessively pedantic gun-owners, the same as you have in any group, nobody would mention this misuse if it weren't for the agenda of the Gun-grabbers. The grabbers have been pushing the use of Assault Weapon and misuse of Assault Rifle into the mainstream media and public consciousness for the last 25 years in order to further their stated goal (agenda) of getting rid of all privately owned guns in the US. If there were no grabbers 98% of all gun owners would not even think to correct the misuse of Assault Rifle. But thanks to them 98% of us feel we have to do so to try and slow the spread of the anti-gun agenda.

Did you honestly think we give a flying fark what these guns are called by the uninformed? Of course we don't. What we care about is not having our guns taken away and that is the only reason we do this.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

The problem is that gun control advocates do not negotiate in good faith. Compromise is a two way street. Taking away my rights and taking a bit more of it down the road is not a compromise. In my home state of NY, a large swath of semiautomatic rifles were labelled assault weapons. For a stretch I couldn't legally load more than 7 rounds into my 10 round capacity magazines. NYC has started confiscating firearms from residents. Now the state is talking about banning "high power sniper rifles". How can the casual observer not state this is incrementalism at work?

You want compromise? You get universal background checks and I get a repeal of the Hughes amendment and nationwide ccw reciprocity. Both sides should walk away overjoyed and there would be no negative effect on crime.

Publikwerks:I figured would keep most revolvers . . . just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.

Does not compute. You appear to contradict yourself. Handguns (including revolvers which you want to keep) are a much higher threat to public safety than a lever action Winchester (which would now be banned). You blanket ban is not really about safety when it comes to reality of the problem.

inner ted:so what ARE barrel shrouds, folding stocks, laser sights, holographic sights & high capacity magazines for??? just to look cool & scary? to be able to recreate your favorite rifle from bf4 or cod? surely they have some function that adds to the ability of the weapon right?

na... probably just to look cool & scary

Those are to keep you from burning yourself, to make it easier to store a gun or manipulate it in confined spaces, to aid in aiming, and to be able to shoot more without reloading.

Some of those may be convenient to criminals, but they're also legitimate improvements for people who intend to use their guns lawfully.

bgilmore5:Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws?

You don't have to be an expert, but some cursory knowledge on subjects in which there are strong opinions (no matter the subject) is a pre-requisite for any kind of reasonable discourse. Like knowing what a barrel shroud is, or the commonly accepted definition of an "assault rifle."

If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?

I'm a Democrat, voted for Obama, and served as a Democratic election judge.

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight. Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue. It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.

I forgot how specificity and definitions aren't important when it comes to public policy.

I do not understand why Congress does not better regulate automobiles. At present, vehicles with spoilers, air dams, hood scoops and chrome exhaust tips -- features that serve no civilian commuter purpose -- are sold without any regulation. I demand a race car ban, also banning all models of the Honda Civic, the Volvo S40 and the Mazda 3 by name.

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight. Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue. It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.

I forgot how specificity and definitions aren't important when it comes to public policy.

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight. Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue. It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.

You are correct. Expecting an individual who demands a ban on barrel shrouds to actually know what barrel shrouds are and why they should be banned is wholly unreasonable.

I suspect that politicians will next be expected to have an understanding of women's reproductive health before authoring bills legislating medical procedures related to women's reproductive health.

Fark It:Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'Both women were stunned.'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said. 'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.

Seriously?

These are just people who want "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership.

vpb:An "assault weapon" is a widely used phrase with a clear and well known meaning. it's even defined in law, unlike the term "assault rifle" It refers to battle rifles, assault rifles and submachine-guns that have been modified enough in an attempt to make them legal.

Right. Like in NJ a Marlin 60 .22LR rifle that has no military connection what so ever is an assault weapon.

fatalvenom:Well since most of the NRA folk in this thread have stated that the assault weapon is a Liberal conspiracy,what is everyone worried about?

You are not even making sense. The assault weapon is a term dreamed up two decades ago in order to describe scary looking guns in such a way as to make it easier for them to pass gun control laws, which they did. It expired about a decade ago and there are many that would like to see it return (including Obama).

What you are mostly seeing here is push back on that stated goal.

You still have your guns,

Most of them, yep. And we will continue to fight to make sure that we can continue to own them. One way for us to ensure that we lose our right to own guns is to quit fighting for this right.

and you are still able to shiat all over threads with tired rhetoric.

Just like you. Not sure what makes your 'tired rhetoric' any different than ours.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

The problem is that gun control advocates do not negotiate in good faith. Compromise is a two way street. Taking away my rights and taking a bit more of it down the road is not a compromise. In my home state of NY, a large swath of semiautomatic rifles were labelled assault weapons. For a stretch I couldn't legally load more than 7 rounds into my 10 round capacity magazines. NYC has started confiscating firearms from residents. Now the state is talking about banning "high power sniper rifles". How can the casual observer not state this is incrementalism at work?

You want compromise? You get universal background checks and I get a repeal of the Hughes amendment and nationwide ccw reciprocity. Both sides should walk away overjoyed and there would be no negative effect on crime.

I'll trade it all for one thing:

Government employees are equally subject to all laws applied to civilians , and police may not possess or use any arm or munition denied to the general populace.

JesseL:Publikwerks: And if gets people to switch to other methods like arson, thats a good thing. Arson is alot slower, and much more preventable. Knife wounds are far more survivable and defendable. Guns are an efficient killing machine, and getting people to switch to less efficient methods of killing is a good thing.

Another responsible gun owner that deserves to have their right protected.

You know what, we do not need to ever get rid of anyone's 2nd amendment rights. All we need to do is start charging idiots with felonies for stuff like this. You know, enforce laws and stuff. That will get rid of 90% of the idiots and solve 95% of the problem.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

Tell you what. I'll trade down to a muzzle load rifle like the ones used when the 2nd Amendment was written 200+ years ago, will that make you happy?

I'd be down with that if it meant you got off the internet permanently and stuck with exercising the 1st Amendment via means used when the 1st was written.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

Tell you what. I'll trade down to a muzzle load rifle like the ones used when the 2nd Amendment was written 200+ years ago, will that make you happy?

Yup. And don't forget to only practice free speech using only your voice, handwritten notes on quill and parchment, and paper on old style printing presses. The founders weren't talking about the internet when they wrote the 1st ammendment, after all.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

Mossberg 500 is a damn fine shotgun. But the short answer to your question is that it's really not about "need", because that's kind of an arbitrary and vague requirement.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right? I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit. I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership. I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

Mossberg 500 is a damn fine shotgun. But the short answer to your question is that it's really not about "need", because that's kind of an arbitrary and vague requirement.

IlGreven:Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: This is what gun owners consider responsible. The bar gets lower every single day.

You are correct, as is evident by all of the posts describing Ms. Tannehill's behavior as "responsible".

...well, the posters are too busy arguing about the semantics about how the weapon left behind to be described to cheerlead or condemn the actual incident...except to condemn the dumbass "ibrul media" who doesn't describe the weapon left behind as they want it to be described.

/Hell, someone will probably condemn me for calling the weapon left behind a weapon.

EyeballKid:Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

When a firearm prohibitionist claims that a law that prohibiting the transformation of this into this will prevent mass murder, derision is warranted.

EyeballKid:Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

We could stop all sorts of violent crime from happening if we repealed the 4th too. Surely you wouldn't mind making your life a little bit inconvenient by allowing the police to search your house at random.

Publikwerks:BadReligion: Publikwerks: BadReligion: Publikwerks: HeadLever: Publikwerks: How so is it irrational?

Because it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation on an enumerated right. I noticed you did not address my request on why you thought that it wasn't an arbitrary and capricious limitation.

I didn't think it was capricious. 6 or less I figured would keep most revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles in the clear. And I would want detachable magazines and clips banned as well.

Now, when I say banned, I wouldn't be against limiting, like having class 3 or nfa status for these, and even opening up class three weapons to allow new machine guns.I just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.

You would want them banned for everybody, including police and the military, right?

Reading comprehension, my friend.Read your question, then go up three lines, where I explain that I would be open to class 3 or nfa status for these weapons. Those laws are both very clear in that they do no apply to police or military.

So you are fine with severely limiting the rights of regular citizens, but the police and military get an automatic exemption. And of course criminals won't care what it is legal to have, so they would just use one of the millions of previously legal but still in existence high capacity guns. The only people your proposed ban would affect would be law abiding citizens, otherwise known as the literally millions of gun owners in America who never have and never will be criminals or violent.

Uhh, yeah. If you are living in a world where you go toe to toe with the US Army/Navy/Air Force or even the Coast Guard or even the local LEOs and win using guns, you are dreaming. The only way to stop the government is not with bullets, but lawyers. Look at Ruby Ridge. Had Randy Weaver not put down his gun, he most likely would have shared his wife and son's fate, and the government would have swept it under the carpet like Waco. But he lived because he took his fight to the courts, where he won.

It's not about going toe to toe. You hit soft targets, supply lines, and targeted assassination.

Publikwerks:Dimensio: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Your unreasonable and irrational proposal will be given all of the consideration that it deserves.

How so is it irrational? Explain to me how one would need more than 6 shots in a non-military/non-police situation.

I'm 100% open minded about it.

You are asserting a need for such a ban. Please demonstrate that such a restriction is warranted, and that a limitation of no more than six rounds is reasonable. Explain also why police would have need for a higher capacity, and explain how firearm owners would be compensated for the loss of nearly every magazine-fed semi-automatic firearm in the country, and every firearm with an internal magazine holding more than six rounds of ammunition.

Publikwerks:BadReligion: Publikwerks: HeadLever: Publikwerks: How so is it irrational?

Because it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation on an enumerated right. I noticed you did not address my request on why you thought that it wasn't an arbitrary and capricious limitation.

I didn't think it was capricious. 6 or less I figured would keep most revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles in the clear. And I would want detachable magazines and clips banned as well.

Now, when I say banned, I wouldn't be against limiting, like having class 3 or nfa status for these, and even opening up class three weapons to allow new machine guns.I just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.

You would want them banned for everybody, including police and the military, right?

Reading comprehension, my friend.Read your question, then go up three lines, where I explain that I would be open to class 3 or nfa status for these weapons. Those laws are both very clear in that they do no apply to police or military.

So you are fine with severely limiting the rights of regular citizens, but the police and military get an automatic exemption. And of course criminals won't care what it is legal to have, so they would just use one of the millions of previously legal but still in existence high capacity guns. The only people your proposed ban would affect would be law abiding citizens, otherwise known as the literally millions of gun owners in America who never have and never will be criminals or violent.

Because it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation on an enumerated right. I noticed you did not address my request on why you thought that it wasn't an arbitrary and capricious limitation.

I didn't think it was capricious. 6 or less I figured would keep most revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles in the clear. And I would want detachable magazines and clips banned as well.

Now, when I say banned, I wouldn't be against limiting, like having class 3 or nfa status for these, and even opening up class three weapons to allow new machine guns.I just want to make it so that as the weapon becomes a greater threat to public safety, it becomes much harder to get it.

Number of deaths from the kinds of weapon you want to limit are vastly outnumbered by deaths from the hunting rifles, shotguns, and revolvers you deem just fine.

Clutch2013:So, today I learned that there's a term called hoplophobia, which is a condition that no respectable doctor says exists, was coined by a guy whose world views were...interesting, to say the least, and is apparently in such use that I'm really starting to get an idea of why, despite my great affinity for firearms, I always get a strong sense of "you have no business being here" whenever I go near a gun display or store.

/some of those places, it's getting to the point where you can just smell the paranoia, fear, and racism/sexism

Oh, so you are not worried about making a salient point and are only interested in 'shait slinging'? In that case, I'll just bundle your points within that context and conveniently flush them down the toilet.

Dimensio:HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: This is what gun owners consider responsible. The bar gets lower every single day.

You are correct,

As always.

Might I suggest, in the future, however that you provide direct references or quotes from individuals who expressed the sincere belief that the act of leaving a firearm in a rented vehicle is responsible behavior. Doing so will eliminate any ability for any challenger to claim that you are attempting to exaggerate or even to fully misrepresent reality.

Don't hold your breath. He just disappears from threads when asked to back up his bullshiat. I'm still waiting on a citation from him on a universal background check bill with no included bans that was supposedly voted down because NRA.

So how about it Hotwing? You going to back up your big talk or what? I suspect we just won't hear from you again in this thread.

Publikwerks:JesseL: Publikwerks: To address your defensive point - limiting shots per reload benefits the defender. It would be far easier to have 5 guns in your bedroom than carry 5 guns as you break into a house.

Are you serious? That is completely and monumentally wrong.

Keeping 5 guns handy and usable at all times (as they would need to be for defense - defenders lack initiative in an attack and don't know when or where it will happen) is a hell of a lot harder than figuring out how to carry 5 guns.

How is it harder keeping 5 guns ready than 1 gun ready. I mean, I'll concede that the attacker has the element of surprise, but by your former points - most murders are in the first few shots. So if they get you by surprise, it doesn't matter if you have a glock 18 with a 40 round clip under your pillow. You will most likely never wake up from dreamytime.

You do realize your whole argument is nothing more than "if you have nothing to hide"

Publikwerks:JesseL: Publikwerks: Dimensio: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Your unreasonable and irrational proposal will be given all of the consideration that it deserves.

How so is it irrational? Explain to me how one would need more than 6 shots in a non-military/non-police situation.

I'm 100% open minded about it.

You could be attacked by 7 people, or you could be attacked by fewer people and miss a shot or two, or an attacker may not be stopped after being hit.

This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.

According to that story she emptied her weapon after he came into view. Thats a poor reaction. She stopped aimed fire and was just unloading. I'm not saying I would have been better, but I don't think 10 more rounds would have yielded better results.

And it did stop him. It didn't kill him, but he ceased doing anything other than bleeding.

Now, if you want to make a case that you could have to fend off a small gang, I just have to say too bad. You show me an example where someone ran out of ammo defending themselves that doesn't military action, and I will give you're scenario some weight. But by that logic, everyone should get to have a FGM-148 Javelin incase a tank decides to do a little B&E

Lucky for me I guess that most of the country is never going to take ideas like yours seriously and I can continue carrying a pistol that holds 18 rounds without really worrying about what you think.

lilplatinum:I don't believe for a nanosecond that all of you champions of lingustic purity never use vernacular terminology for things that could be described in a more technically precise way, you just get your panties in a wad when it comes to your hobbies.

If this type of relaxed and generalized vernacular finds its way into proposals, you can bet that folks are going to point out the flaws. In addition, if you are making a point in a debate, it pays to be clear and concise.

If you are joking around with your buddies on the range, no one really cares.

inner ted:Dimensio: inner ted: so what ARE barrel shrouds, folding stocks, laser sights, holographic sights & high capacity magazines for??? just to look cool & scary? to be able to recreate your favorite rifle from bf4 or cod? surely they have some function that adds to the ability of the weapon right?

What purpose is served by banning such features?

couldn't quite figure out a decent answer?

I think their point is that the onus is on you to explain why people shouldn't have them, we don't have to justify their legality.

lilplatinum:croesius: Like I mentioned, people who are uninformed on the subject won't notice the use of words that aren't used accurately. In all subjects, people who are informed on the matters being discussed will know that you are uninformed. Be it firearms, automobiles, cooking, singling yourself out as being ignorant is never really the best route to go, but is a route taken by many. Take that as you will.

Not using technical terminology in casual conversation is not a sign of ignorance, and I am 100% certain you do it on a daily basis on things you don't care for as much as firearms.

lilplatinum:croesius: The misuse of the most appropriate word for an item for another word which is less appropriate for the item being referenced still remains. Just because a large number of people don't care enough to use the best choice to describe something does not make it correct. It may make it passable in day-to-day conversation with people who have no stake in the argument, but when involved in a discussion on said item as the focal point, it makes a person look uninformed on the subject. The people you are talking with know what you are trying to say, but they also know that there is a much better term for it.

If you are writing a technical paper on the subject of guns, your argument might hold water. For the vast majority of conversations a normal non gun-nut human being would ever have, there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling a magazine a clip, which is why the language has evolved to make the two terms synonymous.

Plus calling it a clip has the added advantage of enraging idiots.

Like I mentioned, people who are uninformed on the subject won't notice the use of words that aren't used accurately. In all subjects, people who are informed on the matters being discussed will know that you are uninformed. Be it firearms, automobiles, cooking, singling yourself out as being ignorant is never really the best route to go, but is a route taken by many. Take that as you will.

lilplatinum:HeadLever: lilplatinum: I am sure you call everything by it's technical name rather than any common name that has come into being through the vernacular. I'm sure, for example, that you always call the pedal that causes your car to accelerate the throttle, rather than the gas pedal.

And I am sure that you call a barrel shroud a 'shoulder thing that goes up', with rest of the gun grabbers, right?

No, that is not in the dictionary as a synonym for barrel shroud, so the compensators have nothing to whine about that one.

lilplatinum:JesseL: If you want to be the sort of person who willfully participates in the destruction of useful words through misuse, go ahead. The fact that you have a lot of company doesn't make you any less a cretin.

A gun nut with a hardon for lingustic prescription, amazing!

I am sure you call everything by it's technical name rather than any common name that has come into being through the vernacular. I'm sure, for example, that you always call the pedal that causes your car to accelerate the throttle, rather than the gas pedal.

I don't care about prescription vs description so much as I care about precision. There are some words that have a specific technical meaning that is necessary for making critical distinctions. When someone insists on muddying the meaning of that word they're destroying a useful tool and they rarely offer up a suitable replacement. It's linguistic vandalism.

And I do call a throttle a throttle - except when it's an accelerator. :P

lilplatinum:croesius: Many words, when used as defined in a dictionary, can lend themselves to a muddled meaning. For instance, "car", as defined by Webster's dictionary, can mean a variety of things, such as an automobile, or the basket of a hot-air balloon. If someone stepped out of a hot-air balloon, you could technically say "They stepped out of their car, and fell 500 feet to their death". It is more appropriate to use the definition of a word that is closest in meaning to the idea you are trying to convey. Engaging in pedantic wordplay this way serves only to obfuscate.

And if clip were an archaic phrase for magazine from a couple centuries ago, perhaps your analogy would hold water. As it is, the language has commonly evolved to the point that clip is known by all but the most pedantic gun fetishists as synonymous with magazine. It is so common that the dictionary has included that definition, because - hey, thats how language evolves.

The misuse of the most appropriate word for an item for another word which is less appropriate for the item being referenced still remains. Just because a large number of people don't care enough to use the best choice to describe something does not make it correct. It may make it passable in day-to-day conversation with people who have no stake in the argument, but when involved in a discussion on said item as the focal point, it makes a person look uninformed on the subject. The people you are talking with know what you are trying to say, but they also know that there is a much better term for it.

inner ted:so what ARE barrel shrouds, folding stocks, laser sights, holographic sights & high capacity magazines for??? just to look cool & scary? to be able to recreate your favorite rifle from bf4 or cod? surely they have some function that adds to the ability of the weapon right?

lilplatinum:croesius: Many words, when used as defined in a dictionary, can lend themselves to a muddled meaning. For instance, "car", as defined by Webster's dictionary, can mean a variety of things, such as an automobile, or the basket of a hot-air balloon. If someone stepped out of a hot-air balloon, you could technically say "They stepped out of their car, and fell 500 feet to their death". It is more appropriate to use the definition of a word that is closest in meaning to the idea you are trying to convey. Engaging in pedantic wordplay this way serves only to obfuscate.

And if clip were an archaic phrase for magazine from a couple centuries ago, perhaps your analogy would hold water. As it is, the language has commonly evolved to the point that clip is known by all but the most pedantic gun fetishists as synonymous with magazine. It is so common that the dictionary has included that definition, because - hey, thats how language evolves.

I couldn't care less about the clip/magazine debate. The reason assault rifle/assault weapon ticks off a lot of people is because it started out as deliberate obfuscation and scare tactics, well the conflation anyway. A gun seller coined assault weapon sometime in the 80s to cater to a certain demographic.

Assault rifles are regulated by the NFA and classified by the ATF as machine guns. Every assault weapons bills I've seen defines assault weapons as strictly semi-automatic. There's no point in including NFA weapons because they are heavily regulated at the federal level and the states who care about AWB legislation have typically already banned or regulated NFA weapons (CA, NY, IL, CT, MA).

Mikey1969:netweavr: Mikey1969: Dimensio: coeyagi: Dimensio: coeyagi: tblax: My favorite part about these threads is all the gun nerds flipping a tit over terms

Exactly. OMG, they said "Assault Rifle", and it's NOT an assault rifle, therefore the gun owner was completely responsible and the article writer is the irresponsible one!

Deflection is all they have.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.

Why bring it up at all? Why not be the bigger man and get to the heart of the issue, that the b*tch was irresponsible. I know, I know, your agenda, furthermore and comma. You're a reasonable person in non gun threads, but pretty much insufferable in gun threads. FYI.

I have already questioned the lack of criminal charges.

You have to commit a crime for criminal charges to be filed. Does that make sense to you?

The article randomly threw the words "fully loaded" into a sentence to make it appear as though the gun were loaded. If it were loaded during transit, that'd be a problem.

Not according to Florida law, just has to be in a case, as far as I can tell.

Really? That seems dumb. Leaving weapons loaded when you aren't intending to fire them is just poor practice.

It's like driving with an open beer. Sure you may not be drunk, but you're still too retarded to drive.

lilplatinum:croesius: lilplatinum: /guess what, assholes - the dictionary says a clip and a magazine are the same thing, so they are

Irregardless of what a dictionary declares, those two terms both have an ideal definition. The fact that they are used interchangeably doesn't alter the fact that a clip most accurately describes one thing, and a magazine most accurately describes another.

Gun nuts get their tiny little dicks bent out of shape when someone defines an assault weapon in a way they feel is not justified, and then get their tiny little dicks bent out of shape when somoene accurately uses a word as it is defined in a dictionary.

Its almost as if they only care about correct definitions when it is politically expedient to their reckless little hobby.

Many words, when used as defined in a dictionary, can lend themselves to a muddled meaning. For instance, "car", as defined by Webster's dictionary, can mean a variety of things, such as an automobile, or the basket of a hot-air balloon. If someone stepped out of a hot-air balloon, you could technically say "They stepped out of their car, and fell 500 feet to their death". It is more appropriate to use the definition of a word that is closest in meaning to the idea you are trying to convey. Engaging in pedantic wordplay this way serves only to obfuscate.

bgilmore5:Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws? If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?

You should be required to have some level of knowlege on the topic, especially if you plan on advocating new laws. My mother and I got in an argument (minor one) over how banning "huge magazines" could have stopped the asswipe from killing so many children at Sandy Hook because he could have "easily been stopped" if he had to reload (changing magazines). When I told her it was extremely unlikely she said a few things that led me to ask her how long she thought a magazine swap took. Her absolutely honest answer was "a couple minutes".No knowledge of a topic means you should not be able to push for laws, regulations, restrictions etc, based on what you have already decided the "right thing to do to prevent..." may be. Ever.

Personally I don't give a shiat if you call it an assault rifle or not, but you should all admit that they are used in the most minor percentage of firearm crime out of any category, and banning them will do nothing. Shotguns are used in WAY more crimes and murders (look up the statistics on the FBI website yourself), but they don't look scary enough for people to demand they be banned.

/the owner of this AR is an asshat and should be charged with something.

coeyagi:tblax: My favorite part about these threads is all the gun nerds flipping a tit over terms

Exactly. OMG, they said "Assault Rifle", and it's NOT an assault rifle, therefore the gun owner was completely responsible and the article writer is the irresponsible one!

Deflection is all they have.

Maybe we should call them "abortions" and then use the fear that is kicked up to ban abortions. That is the entire point. The anti-gunners are trying to get common semi-automatic rifles banned, so they love to lump them in with automatic rifles to convince the other mouth breathers of their ilk to support the bans. Stop being misleading and maybe we will work with you on a few things. As it is, all you will ever get from us to any of your suggestions is "How about no."

Skyd1v:The Stealth Hippopotamus: Fark It: The optics alone cost over $1,000, and Tannehill is a starting QB, so that's probably not a Walmart-tier Shrubmaster. It's probably a Noveske or something.

My first reaction as well. Who leaves something worth thousands of dollars just laying around in a rental car?!

And a firearm is much larger than a necklace.

Worked for a large car rental chain for a couple of years back in the mid-90's. You would be amazed at what people leave behind and never call/come back to collect. Some of the things I picked up out of returns (and I would have given back if they had called in) were:

Fark It:You. Are. Wrong. The STG-45 wasn't even fielded in the war. The STG series of weapons were "assault rifles," in that they were select-fire, that's one of their defining features, the other being the intermediate cartridge.

That's cute. When you are making up your own facts, just put a period after every word. That way it looks authoritative.

So what if it wasn't fielded? That has nothing to do with anything. That's just a red herring to draw attention from the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about when you tried to claim that there was only one assault rile.

And you are dodging the fact that the Gustloff Volkssturmgewehr was semi-automatic. The people who invented the term assault rifle made a semi-automatic assault rifle.

Let me repeat that. It's an objectively demonstrable fact that the people who invented the term assault rifle made semi-automatic assault rifles. They fielded some of them too, not that that is relevant.

Oh, and before you start with the "anyone can edit Wikipedia" nonsense, Wikipedia isn't a primary source of information, it's an aggregator much like Fark. The actual source of the information is linked to at the bottom of the article.

Also you can go see examples of the first semi automatic assault rifles from WWII in various museums if you want to do that.

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight. Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue. It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.

I don't expect anti's to be experts either, and I especially don't care about crap like mag vs clip; it's a waste of breath arguing about minor points when the words are used interchangeably. But sometimes they make some outrageously bad errors, that even basic knowledge on the topic would cover. The classic example being the should thing that goes up.

Except that people want to use these "minor points" to set the laws that govern guns. If they can't even get the terminology right, how are the laws expected to be fair? That is the problem people have with the terminology.

bgilmore5:Let me get this right NRA folks. Everyone has to be an expert on firearms before making any comments or proposing any new laws? If this is the case, why does your political party of preference place creationists on science committees and Michelle Bachman on an intelligence committee?

vpb:Dimensio:Just as you are "objectively wrong" when you declare that a rifle that operates only in a semi-automatic fashion is an "assault rifle".

That's your answer? "Uh UHHHH! YOU!"

Really?

You can stamp your feet and pretend whatever you want, but the term "assault weapon" defined in law. It's something that can be proven in court.

Also it's common vernacular. It doesn't really matter if you approve of the term or not, you don't have any authority to dictate the English language to anyone. It's like an anti-abortion protester trying to claim that the term "pro choice" doesn't exist.

And an assault rifle doesn't stop being an assault rifle if you make it semi automatic any more than a dog stops being a dog if it loses a leg. Even if you were to de-mil it entirely so it didn't fire, it would sill be an assault rifle.

Well if it's de-miled entirely, it wouldn't fire and it would cease to be a firearm. An assault rifle doesn't stop being an assault rifle if you switch it to semi-auto. Just flip the lever and set it to single shot or burst/auto (depending on the gun).

Dimensio:Just as you are "objectively wrong" when you declare that a rifle that operates only in a semi-automatic fashion is an "assault rifle".

That's your answer? "Uh UHHHH! YOU!"

Really?

You can stamp your feet and pretend whatever you want, but the term "assault weapon" defined in law. It's something that can be proven in court.

Also it's common vernacular. It doesn't really matter if you approve of the term or not, you don't have any authority to dictate the English language to anyone. It's like an anti-abortion protester trying to claim that the term "pro choice" doesn't exist.

And an assault rifle doesn't stop being an assault rifle if you make it semi automatic any more than a dog stops being a dog if it loses a leg. Even if you were to de-mil it entirely so it didn't fire, it would sill be an assault rifle.

learning a bit about guns would be a good place to begin. That's just totally wrong.

Germany during World War II, had several Sturmgeweher. There was the StG44, the StG45, the "Volkssturmgewehr " (which means people's assault rifle) series which were mostly semi-automatic.

It IS cute how you NRA types pretend to be experts when you know so little about the subject.

/but at least you don't think the phrase "assault rifle" was invented by pro-gun control people like most gun nuts.

I guess I should feel obligated to point out that the gun you are talking about was produced for maybe the last month of the war and was part of Germany's "Primitive Weapon" program. It shouldn't really be dictating modern firearms definitions, especially when its predecessor and its derivatives use completely different technology and have hundreds if not thousands more in production and still circulating worldwide. There's not a single army in the world that defines an assault rifle as anything other than a select-fire weapon, intermediate cartridge weapon with a detachable magazine.

Also there were fewer than 30 StG 45s made, so we can both discount that one as anything useful or definitive in this debate.

GoldSpider:Fark It: Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'Both women were stunned.'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said. 'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.

Seriously?

These are just people who want "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership.

Reasonable.

Is banning popular civilian sporting rifles based upon the presence of cosmetic features that give the firearms a "menacing" appearance not "reasonable"?

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight. Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue. It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.

I don't expect anti's to be experts either, and I especially don't care about crap like mag vs clip; it's a waste of breath arguing about minor points when the words are used interchangeably. But sometimes they make some outrageously bad errors, that even basic knowledge on the topic would cover. The classic example being the should thing that goes up.

HeadLever:Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Responsible Gun Owners just leave their guns laying around everywhere. No charges.

We don't charge you for leaving your 'free speech' laying around everywhere here on Fark, do we?

Um, you're not going to win that one, buddy. "A" for effort though.

//in other words, there are myriad laws that govern gun ownership and use, which most gun owners have no problem with. I think leaving a weapon in a car would be labeled "irresponsible" by most gun owners, don't you?

coeyagi:tblax: My favorite part about these threads is all the gun nerds flipping a tit over terms

Exactly. OMG, they said "Assault Rifle", and it's NOT an assault rifle, therefore the gun owner was completely responsible and the article writer is the irresponsible one!

Deflection is all they have.

I recognize both that leaving a rifle in a rented vehicle is irresponsible and that describing the rifle as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect. However, I understand your need to claim that a correction of incorrect information is "deflection", given that you cannot actually show the correction to be false.

What difference does it really make anyway? There's too much focus on technical features and definitions and not how they're used and by whom.

It's a matter of spin.

Most gun nuts seem to feel that no one but them is competent to have an opinion on gun control based on their being able to identify their favorite guns by sight. Of course gun control is a public policy issue and not a technical gun issue. It's like saying that you need to be a gang member to decide whether drive by shootings should be illegal.

Also, most gun nuts don't know anywhere as much as they pretend to which annoys me, since I am a military history buff and it's very obvious to me that they are trying to fake it anyway.

factoryconnection:The women saw a weapon ditched in their car and feared the worse: that they'd be found in possession of someone's cast-off murder weapon. Who tosses aside a $2000 piece of hardware like that?

Well-heeled idiots and criminals, that's who. They feared the latter, and got all drama-queeny for the paper.

Fark It:Ms Fleissig's daughtrer opened the bag expecting to find an ID, she instead found the firearm.'We got out of the car, we were kind of freaked out,' she told the paper. 'I didn't want to touch it.'Both women were stunned.'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said. 'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled.

Seriously?

Did you not view the image of the rifle? It features both a pistol grip and a collapsing stock. At any time it might have spontaneously caused several dozen people to fall over dead merely through proximity.

I am unable to determine whether the firearm also features a flash hider or threaded barrel, which of course would cause it to be even more volatile and dangerous.